Skip to main content
Glama

science

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Polymarket Edge Tracker

polymarket_edge_tracker
Read-onlyIdempotent

Edge persistence and decay telemetry built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots. Answers "how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?" — a fresh wide edge and a 3-week-old wide edge are different trades (the latter is wide for a reason nobody is willing to take). Args: days (lookback, default 14, max 30), window (snapshot family, default "1wk"). RESPONSE: tracked[] = every opportunity in the LATEST snapshot with its full edge_pp_net time-series across prior snapshots, first_seen, trend (new | widening | stable | decaying) and decay_pp_per_day (both computed on |edge_pp_net| — the value itself is signed by trade direction, negative = SELL YES); expired[] = opportunities that appeared in earlier snapshots but are GONE from the latest (closed, resolved, or arbed away) with their lifespan_days — the median lifespan is your competition clock; snapshot_dates[] = which days actually have data (snapshots are written when polymarket_edges runs on a cache-miss, so gaps mean nobody scanned that day). LIMITS: history depth is bounded by the 60-day snapshot TTL and starts from when snapshotting was enabled; decay numbers come from daily closes of edge_pp_net (net of default slippage), not intraday.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNoLookback in days (default 14, clamp 2-30).
windowNoWhich polymarket_edges window family to read snapshots for: 24hr | 1wk | 1mo (default 1wk).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Even with annotations declaring readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: snapshots are only written on cache-miss so gaps mean no scan; history is bounded by a 60-day TTL; decay is computed from daily closes not intraday; and edge_pp_net is signed by trade direction. This is exactly the kind of context an agent needs and goes well beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured Args, RESPONSE, and LIMITS sections. Although long, each sentence delivers unique information—no filler. The use of uppercase section labels and explicit field names makes it easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description fully explains the response structure: tracked[], expired[], and snapshot_dates[], including what each field means and how to interpret them. It also covers edge cases (gaps in snapshots, TTL limits, intraday vs daily closes). This makes the tool self-contained for an agent despite the lack of a formal output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining what 'days' and 'window' conceptually affect (lookback, snapshot family) and reiterating defaults/max values alongside the schema. It clarifies that 'window' refers to a polymarket_edges snapshot family, which enriches the schema's plain value list.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool as 'edge persistence and decay telemetry' built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots, with the specific question 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like polymarket_edges (which likely screens for edges) and polymarket_arbitrage.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear usage context: it contrasts a fresh wide edge with a 3-week-old wide edge, implying this tool is for assessing edge persistence/duration. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is contextualized enough for an agent to choose it over siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All science toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes, such as ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answering questions with slight differences. Also, entity_profile and compare_entities both retrieve company data, and the multitude of Polymarket tools can be confusing. However, many tools have distinct use-cases, so the ambiguity is moderate.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names mix consistent patterns (e.g., get_air_quality, get_apod) with less predictable ones (e.g., pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_arbitrage, bet_research). Some follow verb_noun, others are noun_verb or just noun. The inconsistency is noticeable but not chaotic.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the server feels overloaded for a 'science' domain. Many tools are dedicated to prediction markets (Polymarket) and finance, which seem tangential. The count could be reduced by merging similar query tools or removing domain-specific betting tools to better fit the scientific theme.

Completeness2/5

While the server covers a broad range of data sources (SEC, FDA, FRED, etc.), it lacks core scientific tools for physics, chemistry, or biology. The few science-themed tools (get_apod, get_earthquakes) are minor. The set feels incomplete for a dedicated science server, with emphasis on finance and betting instead.

Resources